Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is.
I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Thursday, January 24, 2008

If you really don't want to hear from me again, here is what you need to do

So, when is your court date? I want to see it from the front row. Then, when it's over, I can laugh at the fact I'll never be hearing of you again.-blipey the clueless clown

blipey is clueless because Courts cannot keep me quite- even if I went to trial for introducing ID to public schools and lost. Courts cannot and do not rule over what is and isn't science.

The only way to keep me quiet is to actually find a way to objectively test the theory of evolution. IOW start by coming up with a working hypothesis for stochastic processes- in biology that means a hypothesis that includes culled genetic accidents as the prime cause of diversity.

Ya see if I go to Court over ID the opposition is going to be asked to produce that hypothesis. They are also going to be asked to provide the genetic data that accounts for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between allegedly closely related species such as chimps and humans.

Not only that but any claims made by the opposition that ID is religious will also have to be answered. That means demonstrating that ID says who, when, where, how and why to worship (good luck with that), as well as explaining how their position doesn't require anything beyond nature when it is obvious that natural processes only exist in nature and therefore could not have been responsible for its origins.

Yes, blipey, it will be fun to watch the opposition squirm in their seats when asked to support their position with scientific data when in reality all evolutionitwits can do is to point to minor variations and throw time in the mix to magically get the diversity of life.

It would also be interesting, that is if Barbara Forrest testifies again, if the following could be substantiated (From the Kitzmiller v Dover SB, 10/06/05 AM session, referring to Dr Behe Q is the defense attorney Mr Thompson; A is Barbara Forrest):

Q. He doesn't use religious terms to describe11 these biological systems, does he?

12 A. No, not in those descriptions. When he is13 referring to "design," though, that is a religious14 term.

Forrest follows that with:

Q. That wasn't my question.

16 A. When he introduces that into his discussion,17 then that would be a religious term.

Since when did "design" become a religious term? Did she really mean that?

18 Q. But that wasn't my question, was it?

19 A. In specific places in the book, yes, he does20 speak about it in a scientific fashion.

21 Q. My question was, when he discusses the blood

22 clotting cascade, does he discuss that in scientific23 terms? And your answer was yes, as I understand it.

24 A. I said when he introduces the concept of25 design, then he's introducing it as a religious term.

Yes she did!!! That would never pass in any trial I am affiliated with. I would make sure the attorney hammered her on that.

And once we were finished exposing the strawman version of ID they are attacking it would become obvious as to why ID needs to be at least presented in schools- to prevent the blatant lies and misrepresentations (strawman arguments that have been refuted 1,000 times) that the evolutionitwits have been spreading unabated. IOW the evolutionitwits will be exposed for the intellectual cowardice that goes hand-in-hand with their Nazi thought police tactics.

If you REALLY want to "shutdown this ridiculous blog" all you have to do is:

to actually find a way to objectively test the theory of evolution. IOW start by coming up with a working hypothesis for stochastic processes- in biology that means a hypothesis that includes culled genetic accidents as the prime cause of diversity.

Show me how the genetic differences observed between chimps and humans can be linked to the physiological and anatomical differences observed.

That should be easy to do, that is unless the theory of evolution is NOT founded on scientific data.

At some point, "design" as used by IDiots resolves to a religious meaning. If not, please tell me at which level of designer natural agencies started to evolve things just as the ToE predicts. Is it 2 levels above us that evolution takes place? Three? Just one? If evolution never took place, then how would you define the first designer?

God?

Apparently not. That's a truly strange concept:

The universe was created by something that was not of this universe, but that something was not a supernatural being.

The universe was created by something that was not of this universe, but that something was not a supernatural being.

That is the anti-ID position too you ignorant clown.

Also please tell me why it is important to know where or how the designer came to be.

Do we need to know about the designer(s) BEFORE reaching a design inference? Reality says "No".

In fact reality dictates theat the only possible way to make any determination about the designer(s) or the specific process used, is by studying the design in question.

"The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite independently of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the designer. The inference to design can be held with all firmness that is possible in this world, without knowing anything about the designer."—Dr Behe

"As a scientific research program, intelligent design investigates the effects of intelligence and not intelligence as such."- Wm. Dembski page 33 of The Design Revolution

Ya see clowny it is because of people like you that I included the following in the OP:

And once we were finished exposing the strawman version of ID they are attacking it would become obvious as to why ID needs to be at least presented in schools- to prevent the blatant lies and misrepresentations (strawman arguments that have been refuted 1,000 times) that the evolutionitwits have been spreading unabated. IOW the evolutionitwits will be exposed for the intellectual cowardice that goes hand-in-hand with their Nazi thought police tactics.

The point is we don't have to know who designed the designers or if they were designed.

Joe, when you blockquote something everything in the blockquote is considered to be a part of the quote.

That is false. Everything after the hyphen is attributes- as in who the quote belongs to and can include a bibliography.

Not everything that is beyond nature has to be supernatural.

Now that is entertaining.

It is also a fact.

Supernatural = something that is beyond nature.

Perhaps, but does something that is beyond nature = supernatural? Absolutely not.

And IF everything beyond nature = the supernatural then even YOUR position also traces back to the supernatural (because it traces back to something beyond nature) and therefore is religious by YOUR standards.

One more question for clowny:

In your anti-ID scenario did the laws that govern our universe just magically poof into existence?

And IF everything beyond nature = the supernatural then even YOUR position also traces back to the supernatural (because it traces back to something beyond nature) and therefore is religious by YOUR standards.

My position does no such thing. We evolved by natural processes. The universe came into being, or always was, or fluctuates between being and non-being. I don't know--that's my position. Your position is God Did It.

The best SETI can do is "where"- as in where did the signal come from. Forensic science- the ONLY way to make any determination- the who, where, when and how- in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the "design" in question.

Many times the who, where, when cannot be figured out. Only the how. And sometimes only a vague explanation of how is given.

ID makes no such effort.

And the theory of evolution doesn't make any effort to tell us WHAT mutations caused what changes. Not only that it says NOTHING about the origin of life even though the OoL directly impacts any subsequent evolution.

The point is we don't have to know who designed the designers or if they were designed.

So, if they weren't designed...uh, well, hmmmm. Did they evolve?

Umm thanks again for exposing your ignorance. "Evolution" isn't being debated. It is the MECHANISM.

And again you miss the obvious. That is we do not have to know anything about the designer(s) in order to first detect and then study the design.

Supernatural = something that is beyond nature.

Perhaps, but does something that is beyond nature = supernatural? Absolutely not.

Care to define supernatural for us then, Joe?

Buy a dictionary. I am OK with with the standard accepted definitions.

However it is obvious you are too stupid to understand my point. Oh well, wallow in your stupidity. You and Richie are good at that.

Hint- it isn't 'supernatural' that needs defining. It is anything else that could be beyond nature. YOU want to define everything that is beyond nature as supernatural, and that is just plain false.

And IF everything beyond nature = the supernatural then even YOUR position also traces back to the supernatural (because it traces back to something beyond nature) and therefore is religious by YOUR standards.

My position does no such thing.

Yes it does pinhead. The universe had a beginning. Even in your scenario. Therefore even your position traces back to something beyond nature.

We evolved by natural processes.

Both design and intelligence are natural. Also there isn't any scientific data which shows humans evolved from something other than humans.

The universe came into being, or always was, or fluctuates between being and non-being. I don't know--that's my position.

If you don't know then you can't rule out Intelligent Design. And you surely cannot rule out the supernatural.

Your position is God Did It.

Wrong again. I'm not a religious person and Intelligent Design does not try to explain everything.

One more question for clowny:

In your anti-ID scenario did the laws that govern our universe just magically poof into existence?

Wrong again. I'm not a religious person and Intelligent Design does not try to explain EVERYYTHING.

I fixed that for you.

You couldn't fix anything if your life depended on it. Intelligent Design explains quite a bit but you wouldn't know because your head is so far up your ass I find it amazing that you can use a computer.

So, if thy weren't designed...how did they come about? What mechanism allows for their being?

MY POINT is it doesn't matter HOW the designers came to be. That YOU keep dragging on about this just shows how far you will go to distract a thread.

More to the point, if the designers weren't designed, why should would you assume that we are?

So does that mean that Stonehenge wasn't designed? If living organisms didn't require a designer why would a simple stone arrangement need one? Stones are found in nature and they are produced by nature.

Therefore, by blipey's "logic", Stonehenge wasn't designed.

Now if he could only convince someone smarter than a rock.

But anyway, we can only work on what we have. And if we knew who the designers were then we wouldn't have a design inference. Design would be a given.

Infinite regress works both ways and it appears that your side does indeed regress back to the supernatural.

A few atheists had me convinced that not everything beyond nature need be supernatural after I pointed out that even their position requires something beyond nature- natural processes only exist in nature and therefore cannot account for its origins.

Geez blipey- you not only wiped out archaeology, you have also shown that atheism is a logical fallacy.

um, it's not my definition, Joe. It comes from a dictionary. You know, the standard tome for telling us what words mean. Are you taking issue with all of the dictionary publishers in the world? I'm sure they'll just be beside themselves because Joe Gallien thinks they aren't doing a good job.

If something is beyond nature it is not of nature, therefor supernatural, Joe. Take it up Oxford.

Are you trying to prove that your position relies on the supernatural? Because it does regress back to something beyond nature.

But what you can't do is to say that ID relies on the supernatural because of regression and out of the other side of your ass say that your position doesn't when it regresses to the same point.

And yes, you are a little clown ass. A dumbass to be a sure but an ass nontheless.

So, if those designers weren't designed, where do you think they came from?

What designers? And more to the point, do we have to know anything about the designers BEFORE we can determine design is present and set out to try to understand it? And reality demonstrates that we do not need to know the designers before making a design inference.

If we ever get to observe the designers then we can try to determine where they came from and how they came to be.

so you are saying that supernatural (the state of being outside of nature) is not the same as nonnatural (which is the state of being outside of nature)?

a truly boggling mind you have. Take it up with Oxford. I'm sure they'll publish a special JoeG edition of the OED.

So, could you define supernatural for us? Please remember that you can't use any definition that would mean outside of or beyond nature. As, apparently, you don't believe that supernatural means those things.

What causes seemingly intelligent folks (like you, joe) to not just believe in, but seemingly require for your own sustenance, a creator? Are you stuck in the 2nd grade mentally?

What would finding out you are right do for you or anyone? Would it advance thinking, or academia? And what if you found out you (your childish assumptions, that is)were wrong? Would that knowledge help advance thinking or academia?

Grow up. Life is not a fairytale, nor is its genesis (like that word, don't ya!).

Why don't you do something productive with all your scientific curiosity and chutzpah. Surely your talents could be used toward a meaningful end (not "of days" of course)?

Peace and knowledge,The person you will call a name in 3....2....1.....!!!

What causes seemingly intelligent folks (like you, joe) to not just believe in, but seemingly require for your own sustenance, a creator?

The data, evidence and observations point to intelligent design.

Anthony Flew, once a well respected and often references atheist, now accepts ID because of the scientific data which supports it- go figure.

Then there is Charles Darwin, who said:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." (bold added)

BTW the greatest minds that have ever walked this planet also saw that the data, evidence and observations pointed to an intelligent design.

What would cause anyone to believe that our existence is due to nothing but sheer dumb luck?

What would finding out you are right do for you or anyone?

It would change the way we look at things. It would also change the way we investigate.

You do realize that an investigation changes once it is determined that which is being investigated arose by intentional design- don't you?

Would it advance thinking, or academia?

It would advance reality. And again it would move us down the proper investigative path.

Grow up. Life is not a fairytale, nor is its genesis (like that word, don't ya!).

Umm, I'm not a christian and I don't care about the Bible. I am grown up, gtrown up enough to realize that it is YOUR position of sheer dumb luck which is the fairy-tale. And grown up enough to know that sheer dumb luck is a scientifically vacuous position.

and ONCE AGAIN- All you have to do to make ID and Spevcial Creation go away is to actually support YOUR dumbass position. However it has become glaringly obvious that you cannot and instead choose to throw rocks from the cheap seats.

Yes rishy, you are an intellectual coward. Just like all the rest of the anti-ID imbeciles.

So I take it you have absolutely no defense of your lame definition of extraterrestrial?

As I said before- you can take it up your ass for all that I care.

I didn't provide a definition of "extraterrestrial".

I provided a definition of the prefix "extra-" as well as a definition of the word "terrestrial" and both from standard and accepted dictionarY- Oxford.

Then, by taking those together, as would be the case in the word "extraterrestrial", I demonstrated a contradiction.

But anyways- This was blipey's big chance to present one idea, something, anything to support his PoV, and as usual he couldn't come up with anything except to hijack the thread and take it down as many irrelevant tangents as I would allow.

I take it the following went right over your head:

I know this is beyond your capability but try to apply "set theory"-

The set {nonnatural} includes the subset {supernatural}:

{nonnatural{supernatural}}

Everything that is supernatural is also nonnatural. But not everything nonnatural has to be supernatural.

Uh. I presented my point of view: supernatural means beyond nature as anything that is not of nature is supernatural. then, I...uh, well, cited a dictionary.

You cited a dictionary as well. It was a repeat of my definition. In fact, your definition mentioned that supernatural meant beyond nature. Then you immediately said that this inferred that supernatural did not mean beyond nature.

uh, Joe. that is what supernatural means. beyond nature, beyond natural law, abnormal (in relation to the previous situation). Or are you claiming that supernatural merely means abnormal. In that case a snow storm in April is an example of a supernatural occurrence.

So, I still claim that supernatural means beyond nature. You still claim that it does not.

1. you claim that supernatural is not the same as nonnatural

2. the definition of supernatural is (as shown by dictionary.com) "beyond nature"

3. the definition of nonnatural is (as shown by your link) "existing outside of or not in accordance with nature"

uh, Joe. that is what supernatural means. beyond nature, beyond natural law, abnormal (in relation to the previous situation). Or are you claiming that supernatural merely means abnormal. In that case a snow storm in April is an example of a supernatural occurrence.

Read the defintion AGAIN:

1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

1. you claim that supernatural is not the same as nonnatural

And I provided a valid explanation that you keep ignoring.

Why is that?

2. the definition of supernatural is (as shown by dictionary.com) "beyond nature"

It means more than that as evidenced by said definition. Whereas "nonnatural" stops there- at beyond nature.

3. the definition of nonnatural is (as shown by your link) "existing outside of or not in accordance with nature"

Right and IT STOPS THERE. Whereas "supernatural" has more qualities attributed to it. Again as evidenced by the definitions provided.

4. these two definitions are the same.

Only partly the same. And THAT is my point.

What part about the following don't you understand?

Nonnatural doesn't include the special powers attributed to the supernatural.

And if you think they are the same then your position is in the same boat as ID. Meaning if ID is a religious coincept because of regress then so is your position a religious position.

I then further explained:

I know this is beyond your capability but try to apply "set theory"-

The set {nonnatural} includes the subset {supernatural}:

{nonnatural{supernatural}}

Everything that is supernatural is also nonnatural. But not everything nonnatural has to be supernatural.

Supernatural does not mean having superpowers Joe. Does a ghost have superpowers? Why or why not?

You must take the definition for what it says, Joe. Not what you would like it to say.

For instance, if we break the definition down the way you would like to, we must say that supernatural means merely abnormal. In which case, we say things that are merely statistically improbable are actually supernatural. Whereas, supernatural really is closer to meaning statistically impossible.

For the sake of clarity, you should give clear examples of what is supernatural and what is nonnatural.

"God" is supernatural, in that "God" more closely matches all of the definitions of supernatural and expands beyond the definition of nonnatural.

Both the materialistic cause of the universe and the designer(s) of the universe are nonnatural. That is only because that is all science can say about either.

And that is as clear as it is going to get. Asking for anything better would just expose your stupidity- how can I provide specific examples of something that has never been studied?

Did you have a point?

Ya see if this was in Court you would be forced to show how your position doesn't regress to the same point that ID regresses to.

And if you waffle like you did earlier you would be chewed up and spit out for thinking that an intellectual cowardly position of waffling can have the authority to pass judgement on those who do not waffle.

It is this scenario that will be occur during the next case.

The anti-IDists will either admit that they are waffling intellectual cowards trying to pass judgement on those who made a choice OR they will admit that their position regresses back to the same point as does ID.

No double-standards will be allowed. And all double-standards will be exposed.

What if God designed the universe? Then the cause of the universe would be supernatural. Could you give an unambiguous example of something that is nonnatural and fails to be supernatural. What features make the distinction.

For example, if the creator of the universe is nonnatural and not supernatural, what is his make-up? How do we know that? If we can't know that, is it because we can't investigate it? If we can't investigate it, how do we know that there is difference between the two states?

You'll need to provide specific examples. Start with the ones I gave you or move on to others if you think that would be more clear:

"God" is supernatural, in that "God" more closely matches all of the definitions of supernatural and expands beyond the definition of nonnatural.

Both the materialistic cause of the universe and the designer(s) of the universe are nonnatural. That is only because that is all science can say about either.

You see, joe, the existence of "god" is in question. Is there a god, or not? Nobody knows. To use the construct of "god" as a real, decided, agreed upon, empirically measured (which it certainly is/can not) entity really puts your arguments on unsure (pie in the sky) footing.

Your parsing of definitions, and the name calling are just two reasons you have 3 commenters, and no more. Another reason could be that you are simply grasping at straws, and most of the world knows it. Maybe you will get on board with reality soon! Until then, happy dreaming!

As I have been saying for many years and imbeciles like blipey, Richie & rishy, refuse to understand:

Reality dictates that the ONLY way to make ANY determination(s) about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used, in the absence of direct observation or designers) input(s), is by studying the design(s) in question.

That is how it is done in archaeology. That is how it is done with forensic science.

"Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?"- Wm Dembski

Reality also demonstrates that it matters a great deal to any investigation whether or not that which is being investigated occured via agency or nature, operating freely.

Both irreducible complexity and complex specied information are specified concepts.

And yet you offer no questions...hmmm.

The questions would be:

1- "Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?"- Wm Dembski

As to your list of questions, that wasn't so hard was it? All I had to do was ask 57 times. Now let's evaluate them.

1. Can objects show the hallmarks of design?

Now this is a fine question. I like it; as a question it has merit. Has any progress been made on it? Hmmm. No. The EF--the one attempt to answer this question--has never been used to evaluate anything. Even you refuse to use it.

2. Does IC exist?

That hasn't been going well either. In fact, the entire theory has been shown to be not only unusable but silly. It is based solely on the idea of "I can't imagine that..."

3. What structures are IC?

The aren't any. Zero objects have been shown to be IC. Because IC has never been clearly defined, there is no standard to hold any particular object up to.

4. Does CSI exist?

As a TV franchise, yes. On other fronts? No clear definition has ever been offered. There are no numbers that would differentiate CSI from regular I.

5. What structures exhibit CSI?

Assuming that these objects are different from the zero objects that display IC, it would be a different set of zero objects. Without any sort of numbers AT ALL, it is hard to show that a thing exhibits any property at all.

Now this is a fine question. I like it; as a question it has merit. Has any progress been made on it? Hmmm. No. The EF--the one attempt to answer this question--has never been used to evaluate anything. Even you refuse to use it.

Your ignorance is not a refutation. The EF has been used- it is used by many investigators- one such team, investigating ghosts, uses the EF as they try to debunk that ghosts are the cause of the phenomenon observed.

Also the EF has been used on the bacterial flagellum.

And blipey- I have used the EF to evaluate things.

However clowny I have noticed that you refuse to post the methodology used to determine the universe and life arose via purely non-telic processes.

2. Does IC exist?

That hasn't been going well either.

In reality it has been going really well. The more we discover the deeper IC runs.

In fact, the entire theory has been shown to be not only unusable but silly.

By who? And why are scientists running around trying to debunk the idea of IC? And why have they failed?

It is based solely on the idea of "I can't imagine that..."

Science isn't done via imagination peter pan.

Data- you require data. And seeing the best you can do is to show one new protein-to-protein binding site it is obvious that IC is still going strong.

3. What structures are IC?

blipey:The aren't any.

Wrong! There are many. And science has demonstrated that fact.

Your ignorance is not a refutation.

Zero objects have been shown to be IC. Because IC has never been clearly defined, there is no standard to hold any particular object up to.

Again your ignorance is not a refutation. IC is well defined- and I provided the definition in my post "Specificity is key to understanding".

IOW you are ignorant and dishonest.

4. Does CSI exist?

As a TV franchise, yes.

There's a TV franchise called Complex Specified Information? I never heard of it.

On other fronts? No clear definition has ever been offered.

Again your ignorance should not be mistaken for a refutation. I provided a clear definition in the post "Specificity is key to understanding". You must be too stupid to understand it.

There are no numbers that would differentiate CSI from regular I.

Yes there is. As I posted 500 bits of specified information makes it complex specified information.

5. What structures exhibit CSI?

Assuming that these objects are different from the zero objects that display IC, it would be a different set of zero objects. Without any sort of numbers AT ALL, it is hard to show that a thing exhibits any property at all.

blipey it is true that if you and your ilk run around with your heads up your ass you will never know anything about ID.

However the rest of the world isn't as willfully ignorant as you are. And that is a good thing.